1SochiWwFFySPjQoi2biVftXn8NRPCSQC has history of this last year Feb |
|
|
|
note the 2 defensive blocks of 1 tx each mined by F2pool:  |
|
|
|
still <1GB of RAM + swap used:  |
|
|
|
hmm, spam's back:  |
|
|
|
If you assume that, then just stop now and shoot yourself. Game over. We will sink into a Dark Age and everything will be expropriated.
I assume mankind wants to fight when given the tools to do so.
Bingo! The system the bastards rely on doesn't run without the knowledge capitalists. We run their system.
If even a few % of us start working on an ecosystem of solutions, they are toast.
They must obscure any takedown as DDoS or hackers, because if they simply filter data on the internet backbones, this will be a clear signal to the hackers that we've entered a war of totalitarianism. If they overtly declare war on hackerdom, they will lose and they know it.
So instead it will be proxy battle.
you know, you two should just move here and stay here. then you can circle jerk one another. you were made for each other. |
|
|
|
It looks like he's proposed to increase the blocksize, not in steps like my figure from yesterday showed, but by linear ramps: // Piecewise-linear-between-doublings growth:
time_delta = block_timestamp - t_start
doublings = time_delta / time_double
remainder = time_delta % time_double
interpolate = (size_start * 2^doublings * remainder) / time_double
max_size = size_start * 2^doublings + interpolate
How does that jive with miners periodically voting in increases via block versioning at the 75% level every 2y? My understanding is that the miners only need to successfully vote once in order to activate the increase. Once activated, future increases are on autopilot until 2036. i like it. it smooths out the doubling jumps and the version voting only occurs once. |
|
|
|
It looks like he's proposed to increase the blocksize, not in steps like my figure from yesterday showed, but by linear ramps: // Piecewise-linear-between-doublings growth:
time_delta = block_timestamp - t_start
doublings = time_delta / time_double
remainder = time_delta % time_double
interpolate = (size_start * 2^doublings * remainder) / time_double
max_size = size_start * 2^doublings + interpolate
How does that jive with miners periodically voting in increases via block versioning at the 75% level every 2y? |
|
|
|
so is this a BIP to Core? giving current core devs an opportunity to adopt into Core? Yes it is. the XT patch/pull request is cited as a demo implementation. well, he just eliminated another major objection. we'll see. |
|
|
|
Satoshi made a judgement at one time that 1 MB was an appropriate limit based on that vulnerability, considering the state of the technology, storage, propagation, etc.. What is the evidence for that vulnerability being sufficiently smaller now or in the near future that a 8x or 20x or 1000x is appropriate instead?
The evidence is the 3.5 billion market cap as compared to 0 back then (or the most optimistic estimate maybe 5M). The network can support a LOT more "spam" today and still be considered valuable and useful by its users. And also experience has shown us that there is not much spam. If there was, blocks would be 100% full all the time. When we switch to 8, 20 MB or whatever blocks, its going to be much ado about nothing. If the network was going to use that bandwidth right away, it would be using the full 1MB now. And unlike the case of email, blockchain spam is not even read by human beings so the inconvenience to the network per message is very small (esp. when pruning, etc starts). You are trading the promise of a worldwide currency against the fear that some people might issue some frivolous txns! Bitcoin is unlikely to stay at its current adoption level. It is in a grow or die situation. Someday there WILL be a fee market. When there are 100x more users and 1000x more txns. very well summarized. one thing, that spam is not necessarily frivolous! they're paying nice fees that miners are hoovering up. |
|
|
|
so is this a BIP to Core? giving current core devs an opportunity to adopt into Core? |
|
|
|
Nice! Cypherdoc: did you capture an image of the last poll prior to changing it? It seems that approval for the increase is higher than ever now.  no, unfortunately i forgot to do that but iirc the yes was around 73% before the switch to current poll |
|
|
|
that's interesting. anyone have an idea why the blocks are coming so quickly after the dud stress test?:  Routed altogether after the bottleneck maybe? i think related to this is the zero tx blocks that came within 1 min after large blks during the first stress test. i never got an explanation for why that was either altho to me it is somewhat similar to this. |
|
|
|
that's interesting. anyone have an idea why the blocks are coming so quickly after the dud stress test?: |
|
|
|
lotsa full blks tho:  |
|
|
|
ouch:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
